*Official* England in West Indies

[Flem274*]

He's taken on some quality OD players too (played whilst the BCs were playing domestics) and done well. Arguably his bowling is benefitting from Wagner at the other end but he's doing the business.

Pity the Otago batting is dodgy in the absence of their three best (McCullum, Broom, Cumming).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Small piece of gold from Dave Tickner:

 

[Uppercut]

He's taken on some quality OD players too (played whilst the BCs were playing domestics) and done well. Arguably his bowling is benefitting from Wagner at the other end but he's doing the business.

Pity the Otago batting is dodgy in the absence of their three best (McCullum, Broom, Cumming).

Mascarenhas is actually a front-line bowler who bats a little bit, as opposed to a bits-and-pieces all-rounder. He averaged something like 19 with the ball for us in the county championship last year.

The real prank was when England dropped him from the ODI side for Luke Wright.

 

[Precambrian]

Mascarenhas is actually a front-line bowler who bats a little bit, as opposed to a bits-and-pieces all-rounder. He averaged something like 19 with the ball for us in the county championship last year.

The real prank was when England dropped him from the ODI side for Luke Wright.

His dropping was unpardonable. And will he back for England in the ODIs again?

 

[Uppercut]

His dropping was unpardonable. And will he back for England in the ODIs again?

Maybe. He's in the squad, whereas Luke Wright isn't. But they all have to budge to make room for Andrew Strauss. I don't think anyone can predict exactly what the actual side will be. Probably something like:

Strauss
Bopara
Collingwood
KP
Flintoff
Patel
Prior
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
Harmison

Flintoff means they get one "free pick" so to speak, so Mascarenhas could come in for Harmison or Patel without seriously weakening either the batting or bowling. Or there's a possiblity Davies will take the WK role and open, leaving space for Mascarenhas at 7 at the expense of Bopara. It's all up in the air at the minute.

 

[Precambrian]

Frankly I think Mascar > Harmy in ODIs.

 

[Uppercut]

He's a more useful batsman than a lot of the top and middle order tbh. England's problem is that they can't score quickly enough, especially in powerplays. They have enough players who can play a big innings but not enough that can accelerate. In the context of the side, Mascarenhas is more useful than the "proper batsmen" like Bopara, Patel and Strauss.

 

[TT Boy]

Mascarenhas is actually a front-line bowler who bats a little bit, as opposed to a bits-and-pieces all-rounder. He averaged something like 19 with the ball for us in the county championship last year.

On a Hampshire greentop or in New Zealand maybe but his nothing more than a 4th or 5th bowling option in international cricket. Graham Napier has taken the new ball in New Zealand first class cricket and he rarely plays for Essex in that format and if he does, his not given the ball until it is decidedly old.

Interesting to note the only time England has looked decent in ODI cricket in the recent past (the South African series) is when the middle overs were bowled by the likes of Fred and Harmy not county cricket medium pacers who release the pressure and are not intent on taking wickets.

Don't get me wrong, Mascarenhas is a decent cricketer but his only use in international cricket is the ability to hit medium pacers and ****e spinners out of the ground. There is nothing he can do on the international stage with the ball which Colly couldn't.

 

[Evermind]

I think it's finally time to swap Swann for Panesar. They're both crap bowlers, but at least Swann can bat.

 

[Durham_CCC]

I think it's finally time to swap Swann for Panesar. They're both crap bowlers, but at least Swann can bat.

Agreed, Way to early for Rashid IMO, he will get tw@tted all over the park and people will be hammering the lad. In a few years thought, I think he could be a very good player.

 

[zaremba]

Agreed, Way to early for Rashid IMO, he will get tw@tted all over the park and people will be hammering the lad. In a few years thought, I think he could be a very good player.

Spot on. And the difference between Rashid and Swann is that Rashid really can bat.

 

[tooextracool]

Maybe. He's in the squad, whereas Luke Wright isn't. But they all have to budge to make room for Andrew Strauss. I don't think anyone can predict exactly what the actual side will be. Probably something like:

Strauss
Bopara
Collingwood
KP
Flintoff
Patel
Prior
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
Harmison

Flintoff means they get one "free pick" so to speak, so Mascarenhas could come in for Harmison or Patel without seriously weakening either the batting or bowling. Or there's a possiblity Davies will take the WK role and open, leaving space for Mascarenhas at 7 at the expense of Bopara. It's all up in the air at the minute.

would be a strange move getting ride of shahgiven that hes our best bat these days. personally, id get rid of collingwood, hes 33 and hes an average player. is it worth having him at 35 for the wc?
Strauss
Davies
Bopara
KP
Flintoff
Shah
Mascarenhas
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
Harmison

Strangely enough, lots of bowling and plenty of batting depth. In the long run, I hope Strauss fails miserably and Dimi does well enough that hes allowed to play as captain with Patel coming into the side to bat at 3.

Harmison should bowl from over 20-40 without change IMO. Flintoff should also bowl in the middle overs as well as in the death. While I would have Broad, Sidebottom and Mascarenhas share the new ball.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thoughts on the test team for the 2nd test? Shah in for Bell must surely to God finally come to pass but, given the new Antiguan stadium seems to have a wicket that's no less of a seamer's graveyard than its predecessor, I think Monty could be spared the chop because a spinner will need to do a lot of bowling. There's even a slight case for two, so we might see Swann in for Harmison.

Can't see Jimmy coming back unless it's at Sid's expense as two swing bowlers on a pitch that's notoriously unreceptive to the art is a luxary we can't afford.

Something like:

Strauss*
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior+
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Panesar

maybe?

 

[Goughy]

Its interesting that with all the other distractions we dont talk about Flintoff at 6 anymore.

It makes for a very fragile line up IMO.

IMO, there are not enough overs for a 5 man attack unless you are getting smashed around the park. If you are getting smashed around the park then you may as well get KP or Collingwood on as the main guys are not doing their job anyway.

Ideally, a 4 man attack with a batsman who bowls. Are KP and Collingwood upto that? would Patel have been a better option? I dont know. One things for sure though is that the 5th bowler must be a batsman first and foremost.

As for Bell, I think we all agree that he should not have been there. However, I dont think it is right to drop a player after 1 game of a series.

If the selectors thought they were the best coming into the series then 1 bad game shouldnt change that. Same with Panesar.

I dont rate them but the selectors obviously had them in their best XI and to 180 after a bad game is overly fickle.

 

[Uppercut]

Its interesting that with all the other distractions we dont talk about Flintoof at 6 anymore.

It makes for a very fragile line up IMO.

IMO, there are not enough overs for a 5 man attack unless you are getting smashed around the park. If you are getting smashed around the park then you may as well get KP or Collingwood on as the main guys are not doing their job anyway.

Ideally, a 4 man attack with a batsman who bowls. Are KP and Collingwood upto that? would Patel have been a better option. One things for sure though is that the 5th bowler must be a batsman first and formost.

I completely agree. When they sort out the problem of continuing to pick Bell, maybe I'll start ranting about this.

 

[Flem274*]

Spot on. And the difference between Rashid and Swann is that Rashid really can bat.

So we swap a bowler for a bowler who can bat so we can later swap him for a bowler that can bat?

 

[Uppercut]

As for Bell, I think we all agree that he should not have been there. However, I dont think it is right to drop a player after 1 game of a series.

If the selectors thought they were the best coming into the series then 1 bad game shouldnt change that. Same with Panesar.

I dont rate them but the selectors obviously had them in their best XI and to 180 after a bad game is overly fickle.

I don't agree with that though. I'd say it's just being able to admit you were wrong. The best thing possible for Monty and Bell right now is a spell out of the team- they're clearly not enjoying their cricket and aren't playing as well as they can (even by their not-brilliant standards).

Monty a year ago would have been incredible on that pitch, remember when he used to bubble up to the crease with infectious enthusiasm with the crowd cheering every time he came on? Even if you found it tiresome, you have to concede that Monty's clearly more effective when he enjoys the game, and the answer for me is some time out of the side.

 

[Flem274*]

Cook
Strauss
KP
Shah
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Swann
Sidebum
Anderson
Panesar

Not wasting space on crap like Broad or Harmison. Where's Tremlett?

 

[Goughy]

I don't agree with that though. I'd say it's just being able to admit you were wrong. The best thing possible for Monty and Bell right now is a spell out of the team- they're clearly not enjoying their cricket and aren't playing as well as they can (even by their not-brilliant standards).

Monty a year ago would have been incredible on that pitch, remember when he used to bubble up to the crease with infectious enthusiasm with the crowd cheering every time he came on? Even if you found it tiresome, you have to concede that Monty's clearly more effective when he enjoys the game, and the answer for me is some time out of the side.

The thing is, if you think you were right going into the game then 1 game should not change your opinion. That is being fickle.

1 game is too little evidence to do an about-turn over.

Simply, for the long term logic and strategy of selection I believe that a team selected for the 1st Test of the series should be selected for the 2nd (barring people injured or coming back from injury). If the selectors thought they were the best, then 1 game should not make them bad players.

The time to drop them was before the series I think doing it after 1 Test is a panic decision and would show how clueless the selectors really are in terms of decision making.

 

[Evermind]

Not wasting space on crap like Broad or Harmison. Where's Tremlett?

Tremelett is no better than Broad and Harmison.